deceased; asked if she had ever heard of one claiming to be a sister, and whose residence was in Cincinnati, she promptly declared that she had died years before. When told that a person claiming to be such a sister had been in the office but a few months before, she unhesitatingly pronounced her an imposter. Within two weeks the two sisters returned in company, mutually acknowledging their relationship, but still vigorously denying the existence of any other next of kin. Time rolled along, and the day upon which the advertisement for creditors expired an attorney in the city of Brooklyn presented himself at the office, and announced that he had in his possession powers of attorney from the children of a deceased brother of the ticket-taker, who had died in Tasmania. Examination revealed the fact that all the claimants were really entitled to share in the estate.

There is woven through the thread of many a story in the office humor, romance or pathos. An elderly Scotch woman died, possessed alike of many names and considerable money. Great uncertainty hung around the question of who was really entitled to an interest in her estate as a husband. A canny old Scotchman presented himself with a marriage certificate, signed by a prominent clergyman of a Protestant Episcopal church in Brooklyn, setting forth the celebration of a marriage ceremony, which seemed to ante-date all other claims. Questioned why he had so long remained in obscurity, and had never disputed the claims of subsequent alleged husbands, he said: "A, weel, I knew she couldna live always, and when she deed she would leave a pretty penny." But, unfortunately for his rights, an earlier marriage record showed that a forgotten Scotch husband was still alive when his marriage was celebrated.

A curious case passed under my notice recently of a little girl who, in a heroic effort to save the life of her companion in crossing a street railroad track, some years since, did so at the expense of both of her legs. A large verdict was recovered for the child from the railroad company and deposited in a trust company as guardian for the child. Thereafter, the mother of the child obtained an absolute divorce from the father. Then the girl, grown to young womanhood, died without a will; that father, living far away. became the next of kin of his child. Meanwhile the mother had remarried and the father executed an absolute release of his interest in that child's money, without pecuniary consideration, to his former wife, and thus enabled me a few weeks since to pay over to her some $16,000.

Within a day or two of one another a father and mother died, leaving a little girl in the personal care of a sister of the mother. There was some considerable estate and a question of who should be ap

pointed guardian of the property and person of the child arose at once. Upon the return day before the surrogate, it appearing that the aunt was not a citizen, her claims to the child were necessarily disregarded, and an order appointing the uncle as guardian issued. When he went the next day to find the child he discovered that the aunt had fled with the child and taken passage upon a Cunarder to return to her Irish home, and if possible retain the child, whom I believe she sincerely loved. Hurried instructions passed over the cable to detain the child when they landed at Queenstown; but fate seemed to favor the aunt, for stormy seas compelled the Umbria to pass Queenstown without landing her mails, and before news could be transmitted to Liverpool the aunt and child had been lost sight of

Aside from stocks and bonds and money, many a curious trinket, many a souvenir, valuable only in the associations that surround it, are gathered up in the estates of the dead, and some of the most particular instructions received from relatives abroad, in the matter of the disposition of property, often relate to the returning of these keepsakes. These trifles serve to tell, perhaps, of a mother's love for some wanderer in the New World, the full fruition of whose hopes death has prevented, and oftentimes go back to carry some bit of comfort to the bereaved.

From among the many hundred of cases which have passed under my observation, in the years in which I have been public administrator, I have selected these. They but serve to illustrate the proverb that "truth is stranger than fiction,” and doubtless will continue to recur until Time hangs up his scythe.

JUD

IT DIDN'T WORK.

UDGE LILLIBRIDGES'S court room in Detroit, Mich., was recently opened with prayer. John D. McLaulin, who sued John J. and William Davis for an alleged assault, was the first witness called to the stand. With his Bible under his arm he impressively went into the witness box and, to the astonishment of the court, attorneys, jury and spectators, at once assumed a religious attitude, and began to pray. James H. Pound, attorney for the defendant, was so nonplussed that he neglected to make an objection. Despite the exertions of the court to preserve the established decorum of the court-room, the witness persisted in his supplications. When the "amen" was reached McLaulin took his seat in the witness box and the court-room resumed its customary appearance. Half a dozen witnesses testified that McLaulin's reputation for truth and veracity was bad. The trial was concluded in the afternoon, when the jury brought in a verdict against McLaulin, finding no cause for action.-Ohio Legal News.

CONTINUANCE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF THE OFFICIAL SERIES.

To the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate: The committee on law reform of the New York State Bar Association desire to submit to your committee some considerations relative to the proposed discontinuance of the Miscellaneous Reports after April 1, 1896.

It is, of course, well known and understood that at the expiration of the current year the Superior City Courts, so called, except the City Court of New York city, will cease to exist, being consolidated, under the new Constitution, with the Supreme Court. By reason of such consolidation very much—indeed the greater part of the work now devolving upon the miscellaneous reporter will necessarily be performed by the reporter of the Supreme Court. There will remain, however, three important sets of decisions, which seem to require the continuance in some form of official reports for the purpose of bringing them within the reach of the profession without delay or duplication.

The present system, which has been in operation a little less than two years, has been so eminently satisfactory that attention may be called very briefly to the situatian of affairs previous to the act by which the Miscellaneous Reports were provided for. In 1891 the situation had become such that there were nine sets of reports in existence in this State, aside from the official reports of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the expense of which, together with the Session Laws, to each lawyer, was, in round numbers, $100 per year. It was desirable, in fact necessary, that some action should be taken by which this number of reports should be decreased and the duplication of decisions be prevented, since in some instances the same case was reported two, three, four and five times in the same court. The agitation on this subject resulted in the drafting of a bill providing for three official series of reports, together with a digest, to be published in connection with the Session Laws. While the plan in this form failed, it resulted in the passage of an act providing for a miscellaneous reporter, whose duty it should be to report the decisions of the Supreme Court, at Special Term, Surrogate's Courts, County Courts, whenever desirable, and the Superior City Courts. Thereafter the publishers and reporters by voluntary agreement established the plan upon which the present combined official series has been carried on. It is not too much to say that this has been eminently satisfactory to the lawyers and judges, and has resulted in their obtaining for thirty dollars per year all the opinions in all the courts of the State, making a net saving of seventy dollars a year to each lawyer and judge. Moreover, putting

the decisions of all the courts in official form, so that as a matter of convenience it has been possible to refer to the opinions of any court whose decisions are reported in the Miscellaneous Reports much more readily and conveniently than theretofore, when they were scattered through nine sets of reports without any certainty of their being found in any specific one of the nine.

Not only has the series met with the approval of the lawyers of this State, but the manner in which it has been conducted has attracted the attention of lawyers and judges throughout the country to such

an extent that at the late session of the American Bar Association at Saratoga steps were taken to the appointment of a committee to obtain a report with reference to the feasibility of the adoption of a like plan throughout the country. It would, therefore, be exceedingly unfortunate if we were thrown back to the condition of affairs which existed before the passage of the act in question, so far as the report of the decisions at Special Term, in the County Courts, Surrogate's Courts and the reports of the decisions of the City Court of New York are concerned.

However opinions may differ with regard to the value of the reports of decisions of these different tribunals, the fact exists that lawyers are desirous of obtaining these decisions, and that unless provision is made by law for official reports, they will be reported in an unofficial way so as to add very much to the expense and annoyance connected with it. Five of the nine series of the reports, other than the official reports, which were in existence in 1891, when this agitation commenced, have ceased to exist. As to two others, it may be said that they are issued at irregular intervals, in such a manner as to indicate that they are unable to compete with the official series, and are not likely to remain much longer in competition with them.

The result of entirely abolishing the Miscellane ous Reports would be to invite this competition and again bring forward the irregular and unofficial series, so as to a very great extent undo the good which has been done by reason of this enactment.

It is not intended to be urged that the present Miscellaneous Reports should be continued in precisely the same manner in which they exist by law. It is and must be recognized that the very great change in the amount of work done must necessarily fairly decrease the expense of reports and the compensation to the reporter. With this question we do not in any way agree to take part, nor have we any suggestions to make as to ways and means which may be adopted in the interest of economy. We only insist that provision should be made by law for the continuance of the series, either by continuing a reasonable compensation to a reporter of

the Miscellaneous series or by authorizing him to issue reports in the same manner as the Supreme Court reports are now issued, looking for his compensation to a sale of the volumes. These are matters of detail and questions of expediency, in which the association and its committee are in nowise interested, except so far as relates to the efficiency of the work and character of the reports. It may be fairly said in passing that the character of the work done has been entirely satisfactory, and that any change by authorizing an increased price per volume must necessarily increase the subscription price of the combined series by so much as the cost of the labor of the reporter now paid by the State, but no suggestion is made beyond the very urgent one, that the series should be continued in some form as an official series, recognized by law, in order that its continuance may be rendered certain, and that by its continuance the irregular and unofficial reports may be discouraged.

It would seem that no argument is necessary after the experience of two years, certainly to lawyers members of this committee, in favor of the plan upon which the combined Official Series has been conducted, both for its economy and efficiency. All of which is respectfully submitted for the committee on law reform. J. NEWTON FIERO. Chairman.

who has sworn to his neighbor will not be permitted to disappoint him, however much it be to his own hindrance. When parties have once agreed and are ad idem, the law will allow no backsliding, unless some special reason can be pleaded in defense. Hardly any man in the land can be sure that he will not be obliged to go to law at some time or another upon some matter of contract, however averse to

litigiousness his character may be. Crimes, and even torts, we think we can avoid by circumspection as regards the committing of them; and we may well hope that we shall never be the victims of them in a serious case which would compel us to take proceedings. But we are, most of us, making contracts great or small nearly every day of our lives.

We may at any moment through some oversight find ourselves unable to fulfil our part, or we may be unable to afford to allow our neighbor to withdraw from his. The simplest accounts are riddled through and through with contracts. They ramify into a thousand affairs of importance in our lives. And when one is concluded it is only in order that another one may be begun. Millons upon millions are carried through without difficulty

for every one which is made a matter of dispute. Yet the chances are in favor of a fight sometimes. Hence the department of the law, which we intend to examine to-day, is unusually voluminous. Where, then, shall we best find our law?

That is

Firstly, we will refer once more to Bullen and Leake's "Precedents of Pleadings in the Superior Courts of Common Law," of which the third edition was published by Stevens & Sons in 1868. the best edition to possess. See Chap II, "Counts in Actions on Contracts," pages 35-272, and Chap. V., " Pleas and Subsequent Pleadings in Actions on Contracts," and the notes on these chapters. As we have said in the case of torts, so we say here - the common law of contracts is stated nowhere more correctly and conveniently than in Bullen and from which they speak. Leake's chapters concerning it, as regards the date

Each of

The leading cases on contracts in the common law must be carefully studied. We refer again to Smith's Leading Cases (9th ed., Maxwell & Son, 1887), and the learned notes thereon. these leading cases is made a focus, round which the whole law upon the particular point is gathered in every instance. With respect to contracts we emphasize the importance of the following cases, and the commentaries of the editors upon them. Lampleigh v. Brathwait (i, 153), relating to the doctrine of consideration, especially as to a 66 courtesy moved by previous request; " Chandelor v. Lopus (i, 186), explaining the nature of warranty and how, where a stone was sold as a Bezoar stone, which was really no such thing, it gave the purchaser no right of action in the absence of warranty and of fraud; Birkmyr v. Darnell (i,334,) showing the distinction between a man's promising as surety and undertaking as for himself; Peter v. Compton (i,359), about contracts not performable within a year; Cumber v. Wane (i, 366), as to accord and satisfaction; Collins v. Blantern (i, 398), making the illegality of the contract a good plea of defense; Carter v. Boehm

(i, 522), showing what concealments vitiate a policy of insurance; Wigglesworth v. Dallison, about the construction of written contracts by reference to usages; Lickbarrow v. Mason (i, 737), as to stoppage in transitu; Cutter v. Powell (ii, 1), the well known case about the uncompleted contract and the failure of a condition precedent; George v. Clagett (ii. 130), as to a set-off against a factor who had sold another's goods as his own; Smith v. Hodson (ii, 138), where a contract was tinctured by fraud, but was held to have been affirmed by the defrauded party; Godsall v. Boldero (ii, 286), as to the extent to which a creditor may insure the life of his debtor; Patterson v. Gandasequi (ii, 379), Addison v. Gandasequi (ii, 389), on the law of principal and agent; Thomson v. Davenport (ii, 395),

on the same subject, where there is an undiscovered principle; and Roe v. Tranmarr (ii, 553), as to a covenant to "stand seised." See also Finch's "Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contracts (Clay & Son and Cambridge University Press, 1886).

Of course, equity must not be left out of account in considering this department. Equity has her own leading cases, and possesses a collection of them hardly less renowned than Smith. This is, of course, White & Tudor's "Selection of Leading Cases in Equity, with Notes" (6th ed., Maxwell & Son, 1886). Like Smith, it is contained in two large fat volumes, and it is arranged on the same principle as Smith, by which work it was first suggested. As instances of the important bearing of this work upon the department at present under consideration, see Lester v. Foxcroft (i, 881), as to part performance of a parol contract respecting land; Cuddee v. Rutter (i, 907), as to specific performance of agreements relating to personal property; Blandy v. Widmere (ii, 1), showing that a covenant to leave so much money to anybody is performed by a partial intestacy which gives that person as much money; Seton v. Slade (ii, 542), as to specific performance with compensation; Ryall v. Rowles (ii, 799), as to an assignment of debts without notice to the debtor; Rees v. Berrington (ii, 1106), which establishes the release of the surety by the creditor giving time to the principal debtor, and the notes thereon. For specific performance generally-the chief equitable doctrine affecting the law of contracts-the reader must, of course, refer to Sir Edward Fry's treatise thereon (3d ed., Stevens & Sons, Limited, 1892).

Equity, as a whole, will be considered in a later chapter, and in the meantime we will refer our reader to certain text-books, where he may hope to find his law, and his equity as well, for the purposes of this department.

Before, however, passing to our general survey of the text-books, we must draw attention to the importance which attaches in this department to the countless acts of Parliament affecting the subject, and to which all the case law is subservient. Almost the first element requiring attention in the study of the law of contracts is the famous Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, ch. 3), upon which innumerable arguments have been based and innumerable decisions given. From this time forward there is a long catalogue of statutes affecting our subject, ending with the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 and 57 Vict., ch. 71), which codifies the law of the sale of goods, or attempts to do so. This statute has been edited, with notes, by its draughtsman, his honor Judge Chalmers, and published by Stevens & Sons, Limited, 1894.

Coming now, at last, to the text-books, it will beseen that two are of pre eminent excellence. "A Digest of Principles of the Law of Contracts," by S. M. Leake (3d ed., Stevens & Sons, 1892), and "Principles of Contract: a treatise on the general principles concerning the validity of agreements in the law of England," by Sir F. Pollock, Bart. (6th ed., same publishers, 1894). Which of these are we to prefer? We quote Sir William Anson's opinion: "The modes of treatment adopted by those two writers," he says, "are based on two totally different principles. Leake treats the contract as a subject of litigation from the point of view of a pleader's chambers. He seems to ask, 'What are the kinds of contract of which this may be one?' Then, What have I got to prove?' 'By what defenses may I be met?' Pollock regards the subject ab extra; he inquires what is the nature of that legal relation which we term contract, and how it is brought about. He watches the parties coming to terms, tells us how the contract may be made and by what flaws in its structure it may be invalidated. Leake treats the subject from every point of view in which it can interest the litigant. Pollock wrote a treatise on the information of contract; only in the last edition has he introduced a chapter on performPerhaps I obtained the most complete information on this subject from Leake; but Pollock started me on my way." Note that Pollock has, at present, the advantage of being up to date; the new edition having been published so lately as August

ance.

of last year.

But, though these are the two leading treatises on the subject, they are by no means without rivals of considerable note The learned Mr. Smith, to whose Leading Cases we have already so often referred, himself wrote a treatise also upon Contracts; based upon lectures which he had delivered. The eighth edition was published in 1885, under the editorship of V. T. Thompson, by Sweet, and Maxwell & Son, and Stevens & Sons.

Then there is Addison on Contracts (9th ed., by Horace Smith, Stevens & Sons, Limited, 1892). This does perhaps not hold quite the place held by Addison on Torts, to which it is a companion; but this is chiefly because it is passed by more numerous and more formidable competitors. Nor can we forget Chitty's "Treatise on the law of Contracts and upon the defenses to actions thereon," which has been a recognized authority from its first publication in 1826 until to-day. The twelfth edition, newly arranged with much added matter and facilities for reference by Lely and Geary, was published by Sweet & Maxwell, Limited, in 1890.

For an introduction to the whole subject, students should refer to "Principles of the English Law of Contract and of Agency in its relation to contract,"